Last week I pointed to this as the most obvious headline ever. That was wrong. Yesterday’s WaPo: ‘No Child’ Data on Violence Skewed’
Take somewhat ambiguous reporting terminology, let states and schools decide what it really means, and attach consequences to the reporting like student transfer rights and public identification as a “persistently dangerous school….”
How’s all that turning out?
Anyway, aside from the fox guarding the henhouse aspect of all this, I never got the transfer idea. Wouldn’t just letting all kids have more choices among public schools be a more effective strategy on this and some other issues?*
Gloating Buckeye Kevin Carey weighs-in here, he’s all for some stigma. But for now the public relationists are, well, schooling the realists.
*See for instance this debate with Matt Ladner about special education vouchers in Florida (though should note that I got a brief sneak preview of some data coming out of Florida soon that may indicate that some of the concerns that Sara Mead and I have had about that program might be overstated, see here and here for background).
In regaurding the article ‘No Child’ Data on Violence Skewed’ I cannot believe only 46 out of 94,000 schools are “dangerous schools”. Do you think administrators hide data? Do you think they do not report it or use creative explanations? After working for 2 school district that easily could be on the list I am very curiuos to hear what other educators have to say.
In regarding the article ‘No Child’ Data on Violence Skewed’ I cannot believe only 46 out of 94,000 schools are “dangerous schools”. Do you think administrators hide data? Do you think they do not report dangerous actions? Do you think the powers that be use creative explanations? After working for 2 school district that easily could be on the list I am very curious to hear what other educators have to say.